Last Sunday I was reading the renowned journalist and TV personality Vir Sanghvi’s article titled, A security history of part - timers and “what ifs” in the Sunday Express. Indeed he has hit the nail right on the head with a sledge hammer of his pen. It was an elegy written about all those who perished in the 26 / 11 mayhem in Mumbai.

He writes about the new National Security Advisor (NSA), who will be appointed in place of M. K. Narayanan who held the job for some years who was responsible for the misfortune of this unfortunate country. Let me quote Vir Sanghvi: "Narayanan is a controversial figure. I’m not going to get into the whole issue of whether Narayanan seriously damaged our intelligence - gathering capabilities (and R & AW in particular) or whether he should have done the decent thing and resigned after the intelligence failures of 26 / 11.

My concern this week is different. Narayanan was never meant to be National Security Advisor. When the UPA came to power, he was given a part - time appointment as Internal Security Advisor with the brief of cleaning up the Intelligence Bureau (IB). He only became National Security Advisor by accident: because Mani Dixit died unexpectedly."

Vir Sanghvi says Dixit’s death transformed India’s national security environment, following the appointment of Narayanan to his (Dixit) job which had serious consequences for India. Vir Sanghvi thinks, with Dixit, things would have been much better. But that is one of the big “what ifs” of history. True. And yet from what I have read about Intelligence Bureau and heard about M. K. Narayanan, there seems to be much truth in what Vir Sanghvi opines.

Vir Sanghvi then goes to name some Congress leaders who passed away in the prime of their political career and the difference they would have made to the Congress party and the country had they lived. Let it be.

But now let us revert to M. K. Narayanan, the lucky one, who would soon occupy the Raj Bhavan in West Bengal as Governor enjoying the gubernatorial office. When 26 / 11 happened (2008), many thought his head would roll, but true to Indian political tradition, it was the wrong head that rolled — that of the Home Minister Shivraj Patil and also that of the Maharashtra Home Minister.

That Narayanan was a crony of powers-that-be there is no doubt, especially of the Nehru family. It was strange that media, specially TV, targeted Shivraj Patil stooping to the low of commenting on his immaculate dress sense saying while 26 / 11 was happening, he changed his dress three times etc. Apparently, media and TV were barking up the wrong tree.

M. K. Narayanan, a Malayali (born 1934), is an IPS of Tamil Nadu cadre. It seems intelligent IPS Officers enter IB on deputation and remain stay-put there for good. A cushy job unlike in Police where there is accountability. Was there any accountability on his part when 26 / 11 happened? True, he offered to resign on Nov.31, 2008 over the 26 / 11 that killed over 200 people but his resignation was not accepted by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh.

No wonder, India is now waiting for another 26 / 11 to happen, not according to NSA or IB but according to American intelligence! And this time India may retaliate and attack Pakistan saying enough is enough, according to US Defence Secretary Robert Gates.

Once inside IB, Narayanan became the Dy. Director of Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (SIB). He headed the Intelligence Bureau from 1987 to 1990 and again in 1991, before retiring in 1992. He was the Special Advisor for Internal Security to Prime Minister, being appointed in 2004. He became infamous because of his meddling in the appointments in RAW and also in IB.

There were some other controversies too, but let us leave it there and come to what my friend R. N. Kulkarni, who had worked for sometime in RAW and retired from IB as a Senior Officer, had to say. Kulkarni has written a book, which is an expose of the IB, under an apt title “Sin of National Conscience”, published in 2004. On page 222, he has this to say about IB which was headed by M. K. Narayanan among others. He writes:
"The IB was not rated professionally high by security and paramilitary forces and this had also cost IB the inter - services co - operation. This was due to the conduct of IPS and their management of the IB."

Kulkarni himself was a victim of Narayanan's IPS disdain as with other IB officers. It seems, after serving six years in not so a congenial place, Nagaland, Kulkarni wanted a posting in his home State Karnataka. Though there was no rule governing this kind of posting, there sure was a tradition of posting those who have served the border State to their home State on request. This is possible because IB is an all - India Service.

As Deputy Director, South Zone, Narayanan was staying in the Tamil Nadu State Guest House in Delhi. Kulkarni went to see him with great expectations — taking his posting to Karnataka almost for granted. To begin with, he was overawed to find more than a dozen people like him standing in queue to meet the Big Boss inside. This was because Narayanan was like a State within a State as far as his working style was concerned.

Though the postings came under the authority of the Administrative Unit of IB establishment in Delhi which should finally decide the postings, in reality, it did not happen that way. The reason: Narayanan insisted that all postings for South India should be decided only after his consent. Naturally, all those seeking postings to South India had to visit him and get his blessings. If he said “Yes”, only then the officer seeking the posting could put in his request to the appropriate authority in Delhi mentioned above. It was almost like a Posting Mela in the Tamil Nadu office of Narayanan.

When Kulkarni's turn came, he went in and told Narayanan his problems — old parents, family commitments etc. — and thought he had touched the innermost recesses of Narayanan’s kind heart. However, he was in for a rude shock. Without any expression on his face, Narayanan said: “No vacancies in Karnataka. It is not possible”.

Kulkarni: Sir, in Karnataka there are officers who have been serving for the last 10 years, some 15 years and even more. I will be grateful if you could accommodate me in the place of Mr... or Mr..., who have been in Karnataka for over a decade.
Narayanan (with a poker face): I say, ask what you want, don’t talk about others.

The meeting was over. Disappointed, Kulkarni returned to Nagaland.

Another interesting episode which reflects on the personality and mind of Narayanan. In the '80s, he was a Deputy Director of Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau controlling four States located in Chennai. It was the time when Indira Gandhi's Congress was on the decline having lost the Jan.1983 elections under Chief Minister R. Gundu Rao's leadership. Apparently, he was asked by the powers – that - be to make suggestions for strengthening the Congress party in Karnataka. So, Narayanan called a meeting of all senior officers of IB in Bangalore and in the meeting these officers were asked to give their own assessment of the situation and make suggestions to strengthen Congress party. An example of how the ruling party was misusing the IB at the risk of national security.

Many officers spoke and ventured to give assessment and make suggestions. One said: "The Congress party cannot foist a minority community leader as the Chief Minister and expect to strengthen the party or win an election. He was referring to Gundu Rao from a minority Brahmin community.

Narayanan was livid with anger and said, "Do you mean to say the Congress policies are wrong?"
The IB officer said: No Sir. If the Congress party has to win, it can't go outside the majority community for leading the party to victory in the election. Leaders like Gundu Rao can't steer the party to electoral victory.
Narayanan (with a scowl): Why do you harp upon Lingayat and Vokkaliga communities? Is it because you are a Lingayat? No need for further discussions."

This episode shows how IB sends distorted reports to the powers – that - be. The subsequent events, both in Karnataka elections and the terrorist attack of 26 /11, have vindicated the opinion of that IB officer and also of Vir Sanghvi about Narayanan.